CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[GeeMack]

Ya know,.........

I'm still really curious to hear how those those percentages go up and down without any change in the classification category. It's like they simply make this up as they go and then they modify it to fit if they blow it the first time.

I thought that the classification was related to the frequency of expected flares? How can the percentages just change up and down like that without changing the category of the sunspot group? It was classified Ero all day long, and yet the numbers changed by 50 percent! That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Your misunderstanding could be because you don't have the mathematical qualifications necessary to understand these quantitative things.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php?date=20101109&indexnum=1

11121 Ero 0(40) 0(10) 0(0)
11122 Dro 17(5) 5(1) 0(0)

Now tell me again that it didn't change *AFTER* the fact? Unless you can't copy and paste correctly *AND* my eyes deceive me, it just happened again.

At last you actually produce evidence!
Can you see now how your bad repution for making unsuppoted assertions harms the discussion?
A pity that the evidence is not for your original assertion. I still thnk that you misread the "0(70)" part of the prediciton as a change in % from 0 to 70.

We now have evidence that the NOAA prediction for 20101109 as quoted on SolarMonitor changed.

Now how much credibility is there in that system anyway if everything gets *POSTDICTED* to fit *AFTER* the fact?

And your evidence for the libelous claim that NOAA are faking their predictions is?

The credibility is high as you would have found if you actually investigated the cause instead of instantly libelling NOAA by stating that they faked their data.

The evidence is that this is a timing issue between NOAA and SolarMonitor.
3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt :Issued: 2010 Nov 08 2200 UTC

# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Nov 09
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Nov 08
1121 90 50 5 5
1122 15 1 1 1

3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt :Issued: 2010 Nov 09 2200 UTC

# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Nov 10
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Nov 09
1121 40 10 0 0
1122 5 1 0 0

Note that the numbers for the NOAA 2010 Nov 10 prediction (issued 9-Nov 2010 22:00) are being displayed in the SolarMonitor 2010 Nov 9 as updated at 9-Nov-2010 23:00 UT.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your misunderstanding could be because you don't have the mathematical qualifications necessary to understand these quantitative things.

I understand fraud with I see it (twice). Your beloved quantification "prediction" process is rigged!

 

[Michael Mozina]

roduct: 3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt
:Issued: 2010 Nov 09 2200 UTC

That's a little late to be a "prediction" don't you think?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/daypre/1104daypre.txt
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/daypre/1105daypre.txt


# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Nov 05
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Nov 04
1120 10 1 0 0
1121 3 0 0 0

However, look what we observe on solarmonitor
http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php?date=20101104&indexnum=1
http://www.solarmonitor.org/forecast.php?date=20101105&indexnum=1

No mention on the 4th of 1121 at all, and no mention of the actual "prediction" made on the 4th for the 5th.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, you're probably right about one thing, they aren't "faking" their predictions, just "misreporting" the accuracy of the prediction on a daily basis, and always in their favor. Hmmmm.

 

[Reality Check]

That's a little late to be a "prediction" don't you think?

No. Try to understand what you read.
3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt :Issued: 2010 Nov 09 2200 UTC

# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Nov 10

This is a prediction issued at 22:00 on Nov 9 for Nov 10.

 

[GeeMack]

I understand fraud with I see it (twice). Your beloved quantification "prediction" process is rigged!

Again I'll remind you, your qualifications to understand the relevant math and solar physics in general have been challenged repeatedly, and you haven't been able to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Your opinion on the issue can be dismissed.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, you're probably right about one thing, they aren't "faking" their predictions, just "misreporting" the accuracy of the prediction on a daily basis, and always in their favor. Hmmmm.

Wrong and still libelling them.
There is no misreporting. The SolarMonitor page just does not make it clear that the NOAA predictions are as at the issue date and time (i.e. issued at 22:00 of the previous day). That means that when the page is refreshed after the NOAA issue time, the next days NOAA predictions appear.

ETA
They need include that in their note

NOTE:The probabilities in brackets give the NOAA/SEC probability forecast for the occurrence of one or more C-, M-, or X-class flares for the current date. The most recent data can also be found at NOAA's 3-day Space Weather Predictions page.

Users have to notice that the NOAA current prediction was created at 22:00 on the previous day.

There is no faking the data to make the predictions better.

 

[Reality Check]

I understand fraud with I see it (twice). Your beloved quantification "prediction" process is rigged!

And yet more libel from you, Michael Mozina!

You do understand that by accusing NOAA of the heinous scientific crime of faking their data without evidence that you are totally undermining what little credibility that you have?

You definitely do not understand a timing issue between 2 web sites run by different organizations and possibly in different time zones. Even if you see it (twice).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong and still libelling them.
There is no misreporting. The SolarMonitor page just does not make it clear that the NOAA predictions are as at the issue date and time (i.e. issued at 22:00 of the previous day). That means that when the page is refreshed after the NOAA issue time, the next days NOAA predictions appear.

ETA
They need include that in their note

Users have to notice that the NOAA current prediction was created at 22:00 on the previous day.

There is no faking the data to make the predictions better.

I do not think you quite realize what's going on. The actual "predictions" are consistently being overwritten with "observations" from later in the day, that were only intended to be used to "predict" information for the following day. Instead of solarmonitor.org "leaving alone" the actual "prediction" that was made as of 2200 the previous day, they are OVERWRITING that "prediction" with observations from the previous day that have nothing whatsoever to do with the previous PREDICTION. That 4th, 5th fiasco is a perfect example of how skewed the misreporting is. On the 4th a real "prediction" was made that actually "predicted" that 1121 had NO chance at all of an M class flare and only a 3 percent chance of a C class flare. Nowhere is that actual "prediction" even listed on solarmonitor.org. I'm sure that the original information was released correctly and as intended, but solarmonitor.org is overwriting the actual "prediction" from the previous day with the "observation" in the following days "prediction". It's screwed up! It's "probably" an innocent programming error (God knows I've created more than a few of those myself in my life), but solarmonitor is *MISREPORTING* The actual predictions of the past. The proof is found in the fact that there is absolutely no correlation between the category listed for that day, and the percentage of likelihood of a flare for that day. Check it out.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Try this RC......

Let's look at the predictions for the 5th again RC:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/daypre/1104daypre.txt

# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Nov 05
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Nov 04
1120 10 1 0 0
1121 3 0 0 0

Please now tell me *WHERE* on solarmonitor.org I can find this noaa.gov "prediction" listed for 1121.

 

[Reality Check]

I do not think you quite realize what's going on. ...

I now know that you do not understand what is going on.
NOAA predictions for a the current day are made at 22:00 on the preceding day. The NOAA do not change. They are not overwritten.

solarmonitor.org is merely reporting what NOAA are predicting and not telling the casual user that there is a time difference:

The SolarMonitor page just does not make it clear that the NOAA predictions are as at the issue date and time (i.e. issued at 22:00 of the previous day). That means that when the page is refreshed after the NOAA issue time, the next days NOAA predictions appear.

The proof is found in the fact that there is absolutely no correlation between the category listed for that day, and the percentage of likelihood of a flare for that day. Check it out.

You check it out

• The classification on the solarmonitor.org is the classification that they used for their prediction. This is the classification of the active region at the start of the day.
• When solarmonitor.org reports events at the bottom of the page, they report the NOAA data. They know about the overlap. Thus you see classifications and events for both the current and preceding day. If you hurry up you will see this now with region 11121 classified as "Eao/Ero", i.e. was Ero, is now Eao.

Read the note about the event data:

Note: The tabulated data are based on the most recent NOAA/USAF Active Region Summary issued on 10-Nov-2010 00:30 UT , the values to the right of the forward slashes representing yesterdays values or events. Regions with no data in above property fields have decayed and exhibit no spots. The region positions are valid on 10-Nov-2010 01:30 UT .

 

[Michael Mozina]

I now know that you do not understand what is going on.

Show me that "prediction" on the 4th for the 5th on solarmonitor.org. *THEN* (and only then) tell me it's not screwed up.

 

[Reality Check]

Let's look at the predictions for the 5th again RC:
...
Please now tell me *WHERE* on solarmonitor.org I can find this noaa.gov "prediction" listed for 1121.

You can read? You can follow links?
Then read the page and follow the link.

ETA
Whoops - just noticed that solarmonitor.org retain the link to the current NOAA prediction.
So the real answer is - there is nowhere on the solarmonitor.org where they archive links to old NOAA predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

Show me that "prediction" on the 4th for the 5th on solarmonitor.org. *THEN* (and only then) tell me it's not screwed up.

Wow - are you getting dumber ?
Did you not know that you can scroll through the solarmonitor.org predictions to 20101105.
Of course the link the the NOAA data is still the current data but I am sure that a genius like you can find the NOAA data issued at 22:00 on the 4th for the day of the 5th and the overlapping 2 hours issued at 22:00 on the 5th.

Once more time: The solarmonitor.org display of the NOAA predictions is "screwed up". solarmonitor.org do not tell the user that the NOAA predcition is issued at 22:00 on the previous day while their prediction is isseud on the day (I think).

That does not mean that your crazy accusation that NOAA is faking their data has any validity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow - are you getting dumber ?
Did you not know that you can scroll through the solarmonitor.org predictions to 20101105.

Did you see what it reported that day?

11121 Axx 2(99) 0(70) 0(5)

That was not the "prediction" that was made by noaa!

Of course the link the the NOAA data is still the current data but I am sure that a genius like you can find the NOAA data issued at 22:00 on the 4th for the day of the 5th and the overlapping 2 hours issued at 22:00 on the 5th.

You're still missing the point RC. The prediction made by Noaa is never listed on solarmonitor.org. It "vanished" entirely from solarmonitor.org and only exists in the NOAA data! Why?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Noaa's prediction for the 5th:

1121 3 0 0 0

Solarmonitor's numbers for the 5th:

11121 Axx 2(99) 0(70) 0(5)

Notice any discrepancy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you don't think that it matters, go back and rerun your numbers now with *ONLY* The NOAA data and tell me how "accurate" it was from the 5th through the 10th based on NOAA numbers only, and then run your numbers again with the solarmonitor data! It matters.

 

[GeeMack]

If you don't think that it matters, go back and rerun your numbers now with *ONLY* The NOAA data and tell me how "accurate" it was from the 5th through the 10th based on NOAA numbers only, and then run your numbers again with the solarmonitor data! It matters.

What did the folks at NOAA say when you wrote them and told them they were wrong? Or do they have your email blocked like LMSAL and NASA?